1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case's 7th to 8th to 9th to the court's 7th to 7th to 8th to the court's 9th decision, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the court's decision of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

F. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The point of time when the inheritance commenced after the death of the deceased is as of August 5, 2012, and the donation of this case was completed at the same time as the donation of this case. The deceased resided in the real estate subject to the gift of this case before the death of the deceased. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the real estate of this case, which was the de facto only property of the deceased, was donated to the Defendant at least upon the death of the deceased, and that there was infringement of the legal reserve of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the legal reserve of this case filed after one year, which was the starting point of the short-term period of the right to the claim for the return of legal reserve of this case under Article 1117 of the Civil Act, was the starting point of the statutory period of the right to the return of legal reserve of this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46346 Decided November 10, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da66331 Decided May 16, 2014, etc.). As to the instant case, health class, the instant real estate was the only property of the Deceased at the time of each gift of this case, and was living in the said real estate until the Deceased’s death, and the fact that the Plaintiff found the Deceased for his life during his death after the Deceased’s resided in the instant real estate was recognized, or based on the evidence as seen earlier.